The gen2 and gen3 Camrys are from the heart Toyota’s “fat” years, when seemingly no expense was spared to make them tower over the competition in terms of build and material quality. A while back, a tenant asked me if I would check out and drive a used 1990 Camry she was looking to buy. I figured it was an opportunity to confirm my recommendation to buy one in the first place, as well as to indulge in some genuine Toyota fatness. Little did I realize I was about to have the automotive equivalent of a banana split, or fois gras, depending on your preference for lipids.

I had suggested she look at for an older Camry after her Volvo 850 munched its valves due to a broken timing belt. She now understands why they’re supposed to be changed. And what did she find? A pristine one-owner 1990 LE V6 with 79k miles that had been driven by a preacher. How’s that for a cup of fresh Devonshire cream?

This Camry looks almost new. It simply exudes solidity from every extrusion, piece of trim, and its paint. OK; it obviously wasn’t abused in its twenty years with the preacher. But the years do tend to take their toll. As do the damn motorized retractable seat belts, the scourge of all cars of this vintage. I’d almost forgotten about them; despicable.

This Camry may be fat in content, but its size is anything but. In a classic example of inflation, the 2010 Corolla is bigger than this Camry in every way: 2.4″ longer wheelbase, 2.3″ more width, 3.6″ taller, an inch longer overall, and it would weigh more if this wasn’t a V6 version. The gen 2 Camry was the last one still made within Japan’s width=tax limits, and it shows, or doesn’t. It took a minute or two to for my tallness to feel properly accommodated. But that happens with just about any car, thanks to being spoiled by my Xb. That’s why I put up with its harsh ride: all that real estate for my head and legs. The gen3 Camry (on right) was a decidedly larger car all-round, with a wider body for export markets.

The four-cam 24 valve 2.5 liter V6 purrs to life, and we head for the country on this sunny day. This is a very short stroke and small displacement six, so fatness in its torque band is not part of the equation. One has to poke a bit on that old-school non-e pedal to get some life out of it. But it’s happy to spin, and is just as smooth and creamy as anything made today, if not more so. With 156 horses, it’s willing to hustle the 2800lb Camry right along, but you have to ask a bit firmly. The four-speed automatic shifts every bit as silky-smooth as it did two decades ago, and feels just as competent as the four speed still being used in the 2013 Corolla.

Once you get past the almost forgotten seat belt routine (I forgot to buckle the lap belt), the one really glaring time-warp is the steering. The wheel is big, the rim is hard and skinny, and the assist is remarkably low. Compared to the synthetic over-boosted electric steering on the new Toyotas, this feels just like a big Mercedes tiller of yore. Heavy, rather dull, and a remarkably strong self-centering action. This Camry always lets you know that it would just as soon prefer not to change directions, ever. Perfect freeway car; no wonder American commuters came to love it; the closest thing to autonomous car in its time.

Well, no one ever accused a Camry of sporting pretensions. The ride on its undoubtedly original shocks is still pretty decent; as long as one stays away from curves with any kind of aggressive speed. But the really predominant sensation is the utter solidity of this car’s body and interior. After twenty years, there is not one minute creak, rattle, or groan anywhere to be heard or felt. Except for the slightly enfeebled (or were they like this new?) shocks, it feels like I just drove it off the dealer’s lot. Tight, solid, carved from a granite block, bank-vault like; what other over-used metaphors should I employ?

And for what cars were those metaphors typically used back in the day? Mercedes. This Camry is the closest thing I’ve ever driven that mimics the sensations of a Mercedes W124. The structural solidity, the low-torque high-rpm six that has to have the spurs put to it, the rather heavy and somewhat dull steering, the high-quality interior materials. Obviously, the Camry can’t touch the Mercedes in overall dynamic qualities and in terms of the interior design and tactile feel (and room), but everything is genuine quality padded vinyl or cloth. Nary a hard surface to be seen, except that highly unpleasant steering wheel, which the early W124s also had.

Yes, this Camry is the classic old school Japanese “imitation” of an old-school Mercedes. They both espoused pure unadulterated quality as the key to success. And then they both threw it away, at about the same time. But for $3500, my neighbor just bought a high-calorie virtual time capsule from 1990, and I suspect she may have it for a while. Just don’t forget to change that timing belt!

68 Comments

Never really thought about this Camry that way, but I think the comparison to the W124 works well. My mom owned two 2nd generation Camrys: an ’88 and a ’91.

I have actually driven one of these once. I don’t even remember how it drove, as I was more focused on the motorize seat belt, the button on the steering column required to start it, and its general old age. I think it was a 1990, by far the oldest car I’ve driven.

Lots and lots of cars had one form or another of those buttons. For awhile it was required on MT equipped vehicles and with a floor shift AT it was easier and cheaper than having the park interlock that keeps the ignition switch from locking the column if the shifter wasn’t in Park.

Nice car. A friend had the wagon version, equally nice. These and the generation that followed combined the “reliable appliance” nature of the Camry with overall good looks as well. It’s still not my kind of car, but I’d drive it before almost anything made after Generation 3.

Also felt the Accord vs. Camry distinction was a more meaningful one at this time. They were both the larger sedan available from the big Japanese brands sold in the US but the Camry seemed to be geared more towards family use in subtle ways, while the Accord, though it’d seat the same family, seemed ever so slightly more to say that it was the sportier, peppier option. Your analysis of the driving dynamics confirmed my impression.

This was the car that started my Father-in-laws “Camryitis” which has lasted to this day (though a new Fusion beckons). The 1987 Camry he got was his first Toyota, and he still gushes about it. His all time favorite was the Gen 3 he owned, but I think he would rank this one second.

I have had experience behind the wheel of these as well, as rentals back when they were new. I remember being impressed and thought they were very nice, especially when their price-point was taken into consideration. Solid, thoughtfully designed, great materials–just so well done.

However, those f%@#*-ing motorized belts! I had mercifully forgotten them. The absolute weakest part of the car (thanks Feds). My wife’s ’91 Integra had them as well–we HATED them, and it was one of the reasons we ultimately didn’t keep that very nice car for very long.

Not really “thanks Feds”. More like “thanks automakers, for your determination to fight the Feds”. The rules were written with airbags in mind, the automakers were determined to come up with any solution possible that wasn’t an airbag. Combination of cost, and (I think) an attempt to keep the buying public annoyed at Federal intrusion.

The motorized belts didn’t bother me much, but I did worry that this was one more thing subject to failure.

You know, Volvo had an absolutely perfect system with its original three-point shoulder/lap belt system from the mid-sixties. SImple, elegant. But some drivers and passengers just weren’t going to use them no matter what.

Have a daughter that owned one of these (next gen). She traded it off on a large ford with even larger (expensive) wheels and built in boom boxes. Guess you are only young once. After taking that across country she got smart and got another Toyota. She marches to a different automotive beat that I can’t synch with.

Now has left Texas for Florida and bought a new Prius. Two daughters with Prii and they are both very happy with them. I dunno.

This was the car that made me a Honda partisan back in the day. In 1991, my little 83 Colt got wrecked, and I got a new Camry (the 4 cylinder) for a rental. Our other car was Mrs. JPC’s 88 Accord LX. I liked everything about the Honda, which made the Camry feel like it was made by another division of GM to me. I was thrilled to be rid of it.

Now, fast forward 20+ years. I would love another opportunity to drive one of these. I have concluded (reluctantly) that the competing Accord was, though a better driver in almost every way, not nearly so long-lived a car as the Camry. Though the Honda’s powertrain was every bit the Camry’s equal, the Honda bodies were still in their “ferocious ruster” phase.

I might very well reconsider if I had the chance to drive a Camry like your tenant’s. Once a car gets some age on it, the qualities that seem so important when new pale in comparison to good old fashioned durability. I think that you might have me coming around on these Camrys.

Camrys are good cars JPC and our market new ones go around corners fine you guys got JDM/US grade suspension , ours came with much stiffer shock and harder springs a few hours with spanners and a surf through the parts book and you’d have a fine car.

JPC I agree with you on your wife’s ’88 Accord LX. It was so much pleasing in every way than the facing Camry. We didn’t have the rust issue here so I don’t recognize that as a demerit for the Accord. Like you were saying, our perspectives are different.

As far as the solidness and high quality of the ’90 Camry goes, driving that Accord, or any of the Nissan’s I mentioned, would show you just as much longevity and robustness, but leave you with a more lasting driving impression.

Brendan says he drove one of these and the only thing he can remember is the button. I doubt that would be the case for the Accord or Maxima.

This period was the beginning of the end of Toyota trying to appeal to anyone other than their aging owner base. For example, the gen 2 Supra, a car that just about all of us loved, turned into a 5,000 pound Mark V impersonator. Fat indeed.

Maybe the thought process was, we are creating Lexus so let’s make sure that whoever buys a new Toyota is going to want an LS down the road. I don’t know.

What I do know is that after competing at relative parity throughout the 70s, the OWAF-era Toyotas nearly wiped out Nissan. If it weren’t for the brilliant ’86 Accord, the same would have happened to Honda.

Unlike Toyota, which was fat, dumb and happy, Nissan was hungry, really hungry, and they looked externally for inspiration.

Born out of that were the ’89-91 Maxima, 240SX, 300ZX, Sentra SE-R and Infiniti G20. Hallelujah, and thank God for competition. Alas Nissan shot its wad on those cars and the yen appreciation that followed made it difficult for them to get it back up until a savior came around in the form of Renault.

The domestics were giving up on cars around this time so they had no real impact on Toyota’s fat trajectory. Oh sure the ’92 Camry was a great car but that was as much a response to the Taurus and ’89 wide-body Maxima as it was a result of being a sister of the ES300.

No wonder people stopped jumping at the end of Toyota commercials. Just like the company they had become too old, too fat and bored.

I totally agree with you that Toyota was setting its buyers up for Lexus. Which of course allowed them to de-content the Camry. As well as lower its price; Camrys back then cost about as much as a Lexus ES does today. This really is a Lexus preview.

It wasn’t so much the sticker price that was high, it was the dealers’ “get your discounts elsewhere” game that pushed the street price up.

calibrick

Posted August 24, 2013 at 3:13 PM

That and the fact that the V6 Camry was a lot more expensive than the 4-cylinder.

If this article were post-test drive of a 4, which I believe was a 2.0L and 90% of Camry sales, there would be little praise from Paul or anyone else.

The word that best describes my memory of it would be “caning” as in I had to cane it to get across the intersection. They were seriously, seriously under-powered cars.

The gen 2 Camry and the ’86-90 Accord were in different universes. Camrys in general are over-rated except for the ’92.

Sean Cornelis

Posted August 25, 2013 at 10:01 PM

cali – I think that might be a little bit of an exaggeration. This Camry with a four-cylinder engine and the ’86-’89 Accords were both ~110HP moving ~2,700lbs. of car. I agree the Accord was infinitely better to drive, but only slightly faster… at a rate that was barely perceptible in normal driving.

calibrick

Posted August 26, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Sean I remember Camry being a lot slower than Accord. Did a quick search but couldn’t find a road test. Did find “how stuff works”. Here’s what they had to say about both cars.

1987 Camry:

“Consumer Guide generally applauded Camry’s makeover, but found the engine rather noisy, acceleration little more than adequate (betraying the added weight), and the automatic transmission reluctant to downshift for passing without a heavy stab on the gas pedal.” (cali note: “heavy stab” = caning)

1987 Accord:

“As always, its spirited character and high mechanical and ride refinement set it apart from the compact herd.” (cali note: like everyone else they thought the Accord was a better car)

Their take on the cars is same as mine. The Camry had a noisy engine, barely adequate acceleration and an A/T that was reluctant to downshift. Exactly how I remembered it. Please note that comment came from Consumer Guide, not some enthusiast publication.

People who are too young to have driven both cars should be very careful when they hear universal praise about Toyotas. In the case of this Camry the V6 was OK but the 4-cylinder (80-90% of Camry sales) was a total dog.

Sean Cornelis

Posted August 26, 2013 at 7:31 AM

cali – I can’t wrap my head around that. I also agree that the Accord was an infinitely better car (one of Honda’s all-time best), but my ass-dyno and the published stats for both cars disagree with CR. Is it possible that they had only driven a 5-speed Accord and automatic Camry when this was published? I’m sure the Hondas were geared somewhat quicker, but that can only account for so much of a difference on cars with such similar power:weight ratios. The Camry’s overall demeanor is lazy and detached, but I never found them severely lacking for power even when well equipped and strangled by an automatic.

I also have to strongly disagree that this generation Camry isn’t deserving of universal praise. I personally think the same era Accord completely put it to shame, but my tastes are not in line with mainstream American car buyers. Conspiracy theories aside, it was also an exceptionally well built piece of machinery that exuded all sorts of class and refinement. Toyotas being boring was nothing new back then and is still the case today.

I jumped the gun a bit there, and overshot. By 1994-1995, the Camry LE’s inflation adjusted price was $31-33k, about the high water mark for them.

nlpnt

Posted August 24, 2013 at 4:05 PM

For completeness’s sake, at that time you could still get a Camry DX with crank windows and no a/c.
I’m not sure how much the price drop was from an LE, but it would’ve been one of the more expensive cars so (not) equipped at the time.

First off once Camrys caught on (starting with this generation) they always sold at or near msrp. Over msrp during the first years of the new generation, slight discounts towrds the end of the run.

Camry msrp was always higher than the Taurus and Celebrity/Lumina, and unlike the others Toyota got what they were asking. If you didn’t want to pay that price, the guy standing behind you did.

A lot of the equation changed in ’98 with the cost-effective new Camry (lowered msrp as well) and stronger competition.

Thank YOU for playing…

Canucknucklehead

Posted August 24, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Here in Canuckistan, our very low peso of 1990 made a V-6 Camry LE an expensive proposition indeed, so much so these cars had a lot of cachet at the time. A loaded V-6 LE could easily top $40,000 here and that was in 1990 pesos. A loaded V-6 XLE at $35,000 seems a positive bargain now.

Shawntay

Posted August 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM

First of all, the Lexus today starts at $36k and goes close to $60k fully loaded, if you want to compare the two. Second, though it doesn’t really matter, Camry sells upwards of $5000 or more under MSRP currently (look online, pal; AutoTrader is your friend). Third, a similar Lexus in 1990 cost about $22k then ($38k today). So basically today you can buy a Camry for Camry prices from 1990, and a Lexus for Lexus prices from 1990! Game over, please try again. FYI, I’m an Economics professor in my spare time. P.S. – No one gives a flying fig about Canuckistcant, and we’re talking U.S. dollars.

Very rare cars here the widebody Camry was released in New Zealand in 1990 with 3L engine only the older model like this and US/JDM had the 2.5.
Japanese Camrys still used the narrow bodies well into the 90s though not that design a model that wasnt exported new though used examples litter our roads now.
Catastrophic belt failures happen on 6 cylinder Camrys too and belt replacement charges can run into 3 figures on the 6, the 4 banger doesnt matter so much as its a non interference engine and simple to replace ,belt change costs often relegate Camrys to scrap as the cars themselves have very little cash value now.
My mates neighbour went the other way after her Mazda broke down on a bridge and got rear ended and totalled she bought a Volvo if yer gunna be hit in a car with anything less than a truck a Volvo is the place to be sitting not some horrible JDM crap heap that had the export safety features deleted for the local market.

Yup take this Camry to a Toyota dealer for a timing belt and you are luck to get out the door for anything less than $1000 and probably closer to $1200. An independent can get you out the door for $700 or so if done right with replacing the pulleys, tensioner, water pump and thermostat and it is a false economy not to replace those items on this engine.

1990 probably was the zenith for both Toyota and Mercedes. The cost of a 300E vs a fully-loaded Camry was probably huge at the time. But nowadays, the $3500 Camry in this artical is pretty darn close to my recently-purchased and equally sweet $5000 Mercedes 300E. So what does the extra $1500 get you? How about ABS and a driver’s-side airbag! Which means I don’t have to suffer through the nonsense of those mousetrap seatbelts. Not to mention nice little touches like memory power seats. And that legendary Mercedes bank vault-like feeling. (No need to jump…one just feels secure driving this little Panzerwagen.)

On the downside of the equation is the fact that it’s a darn good thing I understand Bosch KE-Jetronic fuel injection, and how to replace a belt tensioner…among other things. In the few months I’ve owned this car, I’ve come to realize that various and sundry things in cars of this vintage have a nasty habit of breaking. Things you probably didn’t know existed until they hit the 20-year failure point.

Having said that, I wonder how the 23-year-old Camry will turn out to be in terms of reliability…?

A mate of mine recently had a 90 widebody Camry other than impossible to source plug leads($400 ex Japan) nothing went wrong but a cracked windscreen and bald tyres cost more to rectify than the vehicle was worth here so it was scrapped. It amazes me that the car in the post cost 3500 or you paid 5k for a 23 yr old Benz you can halve those values and get change here.

Used car prices have been sharply on the upswing here for the past 5 years or so. Around 2005 it was still easy to buy a decent daily driver for 1200-1500 now they are up around 3-5000. I see people paying a grand for non runners here lately.

Since the motorized belts came up, here in Canada Japanese cars of this vintage don’t have them, so it would be possible to convert to standard belts by doing some shopping through a Canadian wrecking yard. One of the Honda forums I used to be on guys were doing it to their cars.

The motorized belts thing is funny. One of the first new cars I bought was a 1990 Civic sedan that had them. I actually liked it! Then a year or two later, I realized it was fast becoming “dated” as more and more cars had airbags. Then it seemed hopelessly out of date and gauche. Now, it’s one of the things that makes the car seem vintage and I would totally leave it if I had a car with it. But I know that’s not the “tuner” mentality. I know it seems nerdy, but as a user for over 4 years on my Civic, it was actually quite handy — even though you still had to buckle the lap belt, that was a lot easier than reaching back for a shoulder belt. It also moved out of the way every time you opened the door, which I remember noticing a friend’s Maxima didn’t do (you had to turn off the engine). Honda was so thoughtful then… not sure how the Toyota version worked. I do know that Cressidas had the automatic belts in the late 1980s before it was mandated.

I worked in a shop back in the mid-late Nineties where the owner was an ex-Toyota dealer tech which meant he brought many of the dealers customers with him. So I got to see quite a lot of the Gen 2 Camry’s and the thing that sticks out in my mind is seals. All of ’em, rear main, front crank, cams, oil pump body and shaft, distributor housing, valve cover and torque converter hub seals all turned hard as rock and leaked like hell in the few years these cars had been out at that time. I was surprised at the amount of people that would authorize a couple-thousand dollar reseal on a 4-6 year old car. You’d never have gotten the owner of a domestic manufacturer car to do that.

It is all in selling the customer on the fact that those items are “normal” maintenance. If they had been going to a Toyota dealer previously they certainly would sell it as such and include the cam, crank, and valve cover as part of the timing belt replacement along with the water pump. The distributor seal would be sold as just part of the tune up. That way when they fill out their Consumer Reports survey they won’t indicate that they have had to have any repairs, only “normal” maintenance.

Toyota recommend replacing crank and cam seals at timing belt changes on all their cars Ive owned and they all will leak if you dont they are simply service items and are not designed to last the life of the car.

Exactly. And we all know Toyotas “reputation for reliability” was fabricated more in the sales department than the engineering department. As someone who was a mechanic at a used car lot for 5 years, I can tell you their cars are really no better or no worse than any other. All mass produced machinery has its quirks

Yes, it was all a con job, that propelled Toyota’s success all these decades. Everyone has fallen for it, including decades of Consumer Reports stats, as well as many others, including German reliability statistics carefully compiled there, and…

Thank you for enlightening us about the great Toyota hoax; how could hundreds of millions of unhappy Toyota customers have fallen under this spell. Witchcraft? Oh no; just salesmen. Clever bunch, they are. So why didn’t GM salesmen just do the same thing?

Eric VanBuren

Posted August 25, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Well if the water pump and half of the engine seals are replaced as “normal maintenance” then guess what, the owners won’t experience a “failure” in those areas, and report it as a “unscheduled” repair. Never mind the fact that they spent an arm and a leg on “maintenance”.

Shawntay

Posted August 25, 2013 at 12:32 PM

You and your bitchy one-sided arguments are reason enough to quit reading this website. Damn, I’m not a liberal either, so that means I have to shuffle my ass out the door, evidenced by a couple others with whom you didn’t agree. Enjoy getting your clicks from the same twenty people.

Shawntay: This is the oldest (and undoubtedly stupidest) automotive argument ever. Back in the old days it was Ford vs. Chevy guys endlessly arguing over which was better (Chrysler, actually, some of the time). Or sports teams. or Politics. It never ends; we’re tribal, and our allegiances run deep. Or not….

There’s no doubt in my mind that Toyotas aren’t perfect, or ever have been. And it may well be true that in some circumstances, they’ve been the beneficiaries of either some statistical fluke like Eric brought up, or other.

But if we really step way back, and look at the big over-arching historical picture going back to the sixties, there really truly is a reason why Toyota succeeded. And it’s not just me…all the auto execs all over the world saw it happening, they were scared shittless (to a very substantial degree), and had to hustle make very profound changes in their business in order to improve quality. Or die.

And consumers experienced it first hand. And the statistics are way too broad, universal, and well-documented to not paint a clear over-arching picture. And consumers have voted with their wallets, unless you think they’re really that stupid to fall for a con by the millions every year for many decades on end.

This is not tribal cheer-leading here. This is nothing less than the biggest revolution in the modern automobile industry. It’s been acknowledged repeatedly by industry leaders, pundits, analysts, and journalists. Toyota really was “The Machine That Changed The World”.

I see Toyota for what it is; yes, I do have one, but the main reason I bought it was because of its unique packaging (Xb). If it had been made by someone else, I probably would have bought it from them. And it hasn’t been 100% perfect either. What car is. And undoubtedly, automotive reliability has improved across the board.

But you all go ahead and argue about engine seals, or the pros and cons about Toyota car’s dynamic qualities, but the real argument about improvements in automotive quality, reliability and lean production was settled years and decades ago. If you’re unhappy about hearing that long-established fact from me, go ahead and shoot the messenger, if it makes you feel better.

We had an ’88 DX with the five-speed, four-cyl. Most reliable car we ever had. First car I ever cracked up. Kept on tickin on its original clutch to 136,000 miles; rust was a problem as was the head gasket at the end. At some point a few years earlier the cat got clogged; our Jersey mechanics simply drilled through it. (They gave the emissions tests there.) all that and we still got a 2k trade value on it.

A few years later I was a passenger in one on a at back from a kegger in Philly when my buddy driving fell asleep at the wheel. That car was solid enough to get us home safe after he went into a ditch. Man.

A woman friend’s sister inherited one of these from her grandfather. White with blue velour interior and moonroof. She promptly killed the V6 when she first failed to notice the temp gauge being deep into the red zone. She then made it worse by continuing to drive it like that, saying that she “just wanted to make it home”.

A blown $5 heater hose turned into $3K worth of engine damage. Blown gaskets, warped heads, etc. She sold it dirt cheap to a neighbor who replaced the engine, drove it a while, and sold it at a small profit.

I do think the 2nd gen Camry was leading Toyota in the right direction. and this car would have been dominating the had the Ford Taurus not arrived(oddly enough the Chevy Celebrity was the top seller in 1986 with over 400,000 sold that year) . The Taurus took the car world by storm and the Camry would not make the top 3 until 1993(92-95 were the Taurus’s golden years and it was the top selling car every year from 92-95)

As much as as I like the 87-91 Camry, I like the 92-96 better as that model was probably one of the best looking Camrys ever made

Those motorized seatbelts were a pain in the ass. Did Canada have the misfortune of having those damn things? I had ones in my 1990 Escort(that year they would solid top belts that you could not unbuckle at the door(91’s had that option) and one day while trying to back up and park in total darkness I had to open the door and look out and that thing damn near took my head off. The next day I got into the car and shut the door and had the top belt lock into place. I then crawled out the passenger side and got into the back seat. I took a heavy rope and tied the belt to the B pillar and opened the door. The result was the motor burned itself out locking it into place. I owned the car for 5 years and had no more issues with that belt

just never liked the proportions on these cars and same with it’s contemporary Corolla. Thought the Cressida was much nicer looking and the JDM models were no comparison. Especially, compared with the current Camry. My grandfather had this car in gray. Man I thought it was just so technologically advanced with the digital clock and all the buttons on the dash added to which was that automated seat belt.

The V-6’s with their timing belt is an absolute MUST DO maintenance change for these cars. Of course, if your mechanic does it, be prepared to pay around $600.00 or so for that privilege because it requires pulling the engine out somewhat. This car however, is well worth it being so straight and clean. If you have the time and patience, grab the four-cylinder model. That is, a gen 3 or 4. I don’t think there are any (available) 4 bangers gen 2 left . . . .

These cars are all over the place in my area, still chugging along with 300,000+ miles with very little maintenance. I have a ’91 Camry V6, I love the car dearly and have always loved the 2nd Generation Camry.

Anybody who says these cars are junk or that Toyota’s reliability reputation is some giant conspiracy needs to get their head examined. These cars also have a huge fanbase over at ToyotaNation, and the subforum dedicated to them is very active.

A friend in college had a nicely optioned ’91 DX, though I think his was the 4 rather than the 6. He was pretty upset when a collision with a Monte Carlo totaled it out in ’99, and at first, he wasn’t as fond of the ’93 Accord EX that he replaced it with. That was at first; he eventually was won over by the Accord and drove that one for almost 10 years. When he finally did trade it in, it was on an ’08 Civic. Honda convert.

I have no doubt that these Camrys were solid, well-built cars, especially going on what I remember of his and of another friend who had two of this generation (’87 base and ’90 LE, I think). The Merc comparison is a good one, and they were undoubtedly more solid than the contemporary Accord, which could get a little rattly in old age. But the driving dynamics of the Accord were worlds better, and nowadays I see a lot more remaining Accords than contemporary Camrys. The Accords all seem to be a little crunchy around the rear arches, but the Camrys seem to have mostly disappeared around here. Odd as I would have put them about dead even in reliability.

Here’s a late post to a long stale thread: just saw a 4wd, 5spd manual version of this car sitting outside a coffee shop in Victoria. Same colour as the car shown and working as a daily driver with the backseat piled high with painting supplies. Like spotting a unicorn!